The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect might cause confusion, since the show was made in 1992 not in 1994 UDHSS 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the page history, it looks like the article was moved because the date was incorrect; no need to keep the incorrect title – Qxz 08:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Kept. Nickname is mentioned in target article. -- JLaTondre 14:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't relate to topic. Kamope · talk · contributions 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apparently it's his nickname. "Under coach Larry Brown (2003-2005), Miličić only played when the Pistons had an insurmountable lead late in the game. This earned him the somewhat derisive nickname of 'The Human Victory Cigar'." --WillMak050389 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Wet Willie (band). Wet willy seems the more common spelling for the prank. -- JLaTondre 14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear in the target article, although it might fit if we had a source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Target article contains "Wet Willy". --- RockMFR 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Target article only contains "Wet willy" when vandalised. There has never been any source listed, so it should not be in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When vandalized? I wouldn't exactly call unsourced information "vandalism". For a term as common as "wet willy", there are undoubtedly sources that exist. --- RockMFR 16:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has fairly promenent hidden text that unsourced pranks will be immediately removed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of which makes "vandalism" a proper term for good-faith additions. --Random832(tc) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged on 09 Jan by Barticus88, but never listed here. Barticus88's rationale was "politcal not useful". It looks like Academic Challenger deleted a page and then created the redirect to discourage recreation of the original content. Appears to be neologism with little usage so delete. If kept, the double redirect on the target needs to be fixed. JLaTondre 20:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This seems pretty POV to me. delldot | talk 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I said originally, "political not useful". If I recall this correctly, the page went away just a few minutes after I tagged it. I thought an admin escalated my ((rfd)) to a ((db)) and I didn't do any more. I had that happen on more than one ((rfd)) around that time, so there may be more floating out there. Perhaps it's a caching issue, where the redirect went away before the non-redirect content appeared. I try to follow the procedures, but when a procedure is more complex than necessary, I sometimes don't bother with the redundant steps. You'll find more people following procedures if the procedures are designed properly. — Randall Bart 09:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - incorrect as a claim of fact (Native Americans are not Palestinian) and inescapably POV as a political claim. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-NPOV and an unlikely search term. Dekimasu 09:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.